TRACES : A PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR UFOs ? by Maurizio Verga
UFOs are a set of phenomena essentially based on witness tales: it is partially obvious people and, above all, scientists don't believe them too much or even refuse to take them into consideration. Ufologists and often the same witnesses need a "proof", a hard evidence able to demonstrate the reality of what they report. During forty years of sightings of unusual aerial phenomena in all over the world, thousands of physical proof have been offered to sceptics and, more in general, to people, also in order to show the materiality of those "objects" and, consequently, their extraterrestrial origin. Such proofs have produced the so-called "physical evidence" that is composed by three different kinds of events at least: photos, radar detections and traces. No one of the thousands of existing pictures showing strange lights in the sky or even structured objects can be taken seriously into consideration as an undoubtful evidence. It isn't ever possible to exclude the presence of a fake even when processing the image by sophisticated computer technologies: moreover, photos sometimes refer to phenomena that can have a conventional origin. Radar sightings are a very rare kind of UFO incidents and even though some of them seem to be puzzling one cannot exclude the presence of malfunctions in the radar equipments or very unusual atmospheric phenomena.
The presence of traces related with the apparition of UFO phenomena or indirectly associated with them (a ground mark is found and it is related with UFOs at once, even though no sighting was reported), thanks to the influence of the so-called "UFO myth", is the most solid evidence at moment and one of the most intringuing aspects of the whole question, so that I'll deal with it deeply in this paper. For traces imply that the phenomenon is not something perceived subjectively and belonging only to the senses of the witness, but truly something with physical attributes, beyond its original cause. This physical "proof" has been expedited by the "extraterrestrialists" as support for their contention that material UFOs (ie "spacecrafts") exist. The ETH (as belief in extraterrestrial origin is called) is clearly out of fashion and its proponents rely heavily on physical trace evidence to keep its tenets alive.
- WHAT IS A TRACE CASE
A number of trace events from 2,500 to 3,000 has beenregistered in the international casuistry along the past forty years and it represents a real "trace phenomenon" worth to be studied thoroughly. Its existence cannot be neglected but we are a long way from saying it represents the proof for materiality of UFO phenomena: too many causes are able to produce traces on ground/
A.N. (Groupe d'Etude des Phenomenes Aerospatiaux Non-Identifies, a government-financed scientific research group) is a classic "direct association" case, as the witness described a strange object hovering over the same place where a circular trace was found on the ground. At same time, some cases presented by press as "UFO trace incidents" were simple meteorite falls producing holes in the ground and they can be included in such a category as well.
A third or so of all cases offering physical traces refers to the discovering of strange marks on ground without any visual sighting of unusual aerial phenomena over the site where they have been found. Their apparent strangeness, the usual circular shape and, often, the news about UFO sightings in that same time led people to interpret them as traces produced by UFOs. The myth is a vital factor in this kind of cases: their relationship with UFO phenomena is simply supposed, above all because these round traces are very similar to those found after evident UFO landings. It is enough to think to the very famous English cornfields circles appearing each summer during the last six years (2). Most of these traces have a conventional explanation: the others don't show any clear link with what we usually call "UFO phenomenon".
The trace catalogue is extremely rich and difficult to summarize: hereforth is an attempt to produce a list of them.
- rings where the soil/grass has been burnt or flattened or dehydrated. - "nests", oval or circular traces where grass or other plants have been flattened and rotated (anti)clockwise. - circular marks with various kinds of damage inside it. - burnt/flattened areas of grass or ground with no specific shape. - imprints left by something like "landing gears", usually structured along geometrical shapes (square and triangle, above all). - damages to trees and other plants, such as broken/folded branches and burnt/dehydrated leaves. - craters and various kinds of holes in the ground, generally found without any observation of anomalous aerial phenomena. - footprints left by human-like "feet" and often associated with other traces. - fragments generally having metallic appearance and other solid-liquid-oily substances. - other more rare events, as the so-called "angel's hair" (filament like glass or silk sometimes reported as falling from strange objects, but very probably nothing more than spiderwebs and/or industrial residues).
But the list of physical effects associated to UFO experiences is much more long.
But what is a "UFO trace incident", actually ? The author's definition for "trace cases" is the following:
"Any event where the discovery of a trace on ground (vegetation and other materials) and/or of substances having various nature and constitution has been associated to what is conventionally known as "UFO phenomenon", both (when) its manifestation has been reported or only supposed. The association between the occurrence of the event (perceived or not) and the discovery of traces can be accomplished by witness, investigators and other persons not connected with the case".
Notice that we have used the term "UFO phenomenon" and not "original stimulus creating a witness experience classified as a ufological one" or a similar expression, in that I wish to point out the fact that most people usually couple to the idea of the trace, the presence of something "alien" in nature that - during its manifestation - is able to interact with the ambient: a "something" usually envisaged through the vague idea of an entity responsible for all the news and fragmentary notions (forming with other elements the UFO myth, which strong influence clouds most trace cases) in connection with the apparition of "flying
saucers" and "UFOs". Such a definition allows us to consider all those events that have been attributed to this origin by someone (and it does not matter who), therefore permitting us to examine those situations pointed out, often on the basis of a mass of rumours and suppositions as to the causation of its manifestation. Obviously, in this way, one is able to gather under one heading a number of events that are vastly different in quality and quantity, but each pointing to the same common denominator, the idea of the "UFO phenomenon" (but we feel that "phenomenon" isn't the right term), therefore there is the need to extract that portion of cases that one can decide is able to relate genuinely with the concept of "stimulus causing the witness experience" (in case there is one at objective level; on the other hand, this statement is not intended to push the other kinds of event (rumours, misinterpretations and hoaxes, which need a specific indepth processing) into the shade at all).
Trace evidence is one of many aspects of the phenomenon with a clearly contradictory nature. These "contradictions" can be used as a basis to propose a plural original stimulus for the phenomenon, that is several manifestations as a specif function of specific conditions. It is enough in this context to consider those cases where a UFO is seen on the ground and yet apparently leaves no trace. In practice, certain phenomena leaves physical traces, other do not. Even when we bear in mind that we are always dealing with witness accounts, often poorly investigated and without any recourse to psychology of perception and alleged matters, it would still seem that the phenomenon does not display strict or consistent criteria. On the contrary, its criteria are highly changeable, probably beacuse of a completely unknown "something" (which may well be linked with individual characteristics of the witness).
CONVENTIONAL CAUSES OF MOST UFO TRACES
One can question the opinion that traces provide proof of a material nature of the UFO phenomenon in two ways. Firstly, by considering natural phenomena capable of producing traces. Secondly, by considering the facts and figures, as well as the standards in practice of present day field investigators.
In nature there are several causes able to produce remarkably strange trace marks under certain circumstances. These include fungii, plants and grass sicknesses, lightining, animal habits, whirlwinds, tornadoes, rain, helicopter leapstreams, exfoliation, geomorphological features of the ground and so on. Furthermore, the action of man on the environment can also result in traces, for example cars, carts, mowers, fires, chemical
products, etc.... Discovering such a trace after a local UFO sighting can easily lead to their connection with "alien activity". Even in situation where no UFOs was seen, the appearance of a trace (especially when circular) can reawaken distant memories in the collective coscience of stereotyped flying saucers and their alleged effects. Both material (e.g. notoriety) and psychological (stimulation by a flap in the vicinity) factors may come into play. The existence of concrete evidence tends to make any case more credible, no matter how spurious it may be. Traces often are unusual, even if explicable. The cultural belief system and possibly emotional states can soon lead to the creation of abstruse hypotheses and speculations, on the basis of natural or artificially produced explicable phenomena. Here is a few examples of explained traces taken from the author's own study about the "physical trace evidence".
- a 30 centimeters wide ring was found on dry soil, together with a white powdery matter: it had a diameter of 7.2 meters. No UFO sightings was reported in connection to it (3). This Australian trace was a typical "fairy ring" (4), caused by the growth of some kinds of fungii (for example the Marasmius Oreades). In another Argentinian event, inside two rings of flattened grass (each one having a width of 30 centimeters and forming a circle of 3.3 meters in diameter) the roots of the weed seemed carbonized up to 7/10 centimeters in depth: more, there was a whitish powder and the grass appeared dehydrated in some points. Some days before, some people would have seen an oval- shaped reddish light to land in the same zone where the trace was discovered (5).
- eleven (!) rings ranging in diameter from 2.5 to 6 meters werefound in a wheat field near Rossburn, Canada. Some of them were aligned directly underneath a telephone line: others were "paired", that is separated by 0 to 60 centimeters, with respect of the other rings from each other. The affected grain was swirled and depressed to the ground in an anticlockwise direction in most rings, though a few were swirled clockwise. An analysis of the grain showed that a peculiar darkening was not due to "scorching" but by the presence of mold, presumably caused by grain lying on the ground being pushed into the wet soil. Nearly surely, traces were caused by a tornado, as suggested an atmospheric specialist: that zone was just relatively prone tornadoes and one one or two moths before the discovery of rings the weather was right to produce them (6). Again, remarkable set of traces involving serious damages to some trees and a stone wall was presented by a now defuncted magazine (7) in relation to a UFO activity as a hypothesis. The incident happened in Montauroux, France, in October 1972, but then was explained as the action of a strong tornado (8).
- A depression about 1.8 meters across was indented to a depth of 15.2 centimeters with a central indentation about 45.7 centimeters: the sides were smooth as glass. There were seven smaller holes around the edge of the chief indentation. A fine powdery substance at the base of the main hole and around the hole was indicated to be natural salt desiccated by an intense heat. The trace was found at Boggabri, NSW, Australia in November 1970 and was indirectly associated to UFOs. Its origin was primary and secondary lightning strikes during the coinciding period of electrical storms (9). Another case very probably due to a lightning strike took place at Virle, Italy, during the very last days of May 1985. In a maze field, where plants were still small, two complex sets of traces were found, 3 meters one from the other. Both were made by some "rays" (3/4 cms deep furrows in the ground) starting from a common 20 cms deep point. The first set had six "rays", the second one five: the longest was 5.6 meters or so. Strangely no plant seemed to have been damaged: all traces were covered by a sort of greyish powder. Subsequent analyses stated that such a powder was composed by the ground metallic salts outcropped due to a "very intense energy". After the massive publicity given to the event by all mass-media (including national TV), some reports about sightings of strange night lights in that same zone came to light (10). An astonishing similar event took place in France, at Maresuil-sur-Belle, around June 20, 1972. A central 1.5 meters large crater, 25-30 cms in depth with seven "branches" (the longest was 10 meters, the shortest 3 mts) was just found in a maze field, without any previous UFO sighting. The ground inside the traces was more clear than that outside them and it appeared covered by a fine white powder. Some soil turfs had been projected as far as one meter from their original position. Notwithstanding it seems there weren't storms in the days immediately before the discovery of the traces, it is very probable that the true cause of the event was a lightning strike. Another case just of the same kind was reported the following August in Montallery, France (11).
- a semicircular area of faded grass, produced by a mower (12). A practically equal event took place in Barbiano di Cotignola (near Ravenna, Italy) on July 8, 1974: a semicircular zone of yellowed and damaged grass was found and put in relation with a local UFO sighting at once. Afterwards, a man stated he had produced it by a mower (13).
- three near circular burnt traces, placed a few meters one from the other on a straight line. Inside them, the soil and some dried shrubs were burnt. Near surely, the cause was a simple pic- nic of some excursionist. The traces were found on a mountain by a young ufologist in search of physical evidence for the sighting
is really puzzling in most cases: for example, it is hard to think that they have been left by a "living" being when only two distant footprints have been reported (16). The question of these special traces is very interesting and complex, as it can supply valuable information about the nature of close encounters of the third kind: in fact, such footprints seem to provide a physical evidence to the entities reported by witnesses, but the reality is quite different. Lack of serious reliable information, conventional causes and scarce quality of sources lead to reconsider the value of such "proofs" (17), the same as for most UFO traces.
An even more hard evaluation must be done about fragments and other kinds of unusual substances found on some UFO landings sites. First of all, it is necessary to remark how few those cases are: twenty events in a 40-years casuistry are an overestimated quantity. Most of them have not been subjected to an in-depth investigation and available information are often some simple rumours with no value. To have a piece of a UFO in our own hands would be a really exceptional luck (the dream for every ufologist !) to study its origin: unfortunately, those few samples subjected to analyses didn't ever supply interesting information. Their components and their percentages were perfectly well-known and normal, even though the results of analyses sometimes have been interpreted according to ufologists' wishes. For example, the longly debated Ubatuba case (a UFO would be exploded over a Brazilian shore in 1957 and some fragments were then found: following the original analyses someone stated that those metal pieces were near pure magnesium, impossible to produce on Earth at that time. Further analyses and interpretations gave different results, but it seems that those "exceptionally strange fragments" were nothing other than parts of a projectile shot by the Brazilian artillery !) can be taken as a clear example of the many problems being behind these cases.
Often cases relating to the falls of strange objects from the sky (pieces of ice or metal, as well as simple meteorites) have been unduly associated to UFO phenomena and considered as "fragments". Agreeing that there is absolutelty no relationship between such strange falls (collected and studied by Fortean researchers) and UFOs, most ufologists justly avoid to consider those events inside the "physical trace evidence".
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
The previously mentioned points are critical and must be carefully born in mind. The discovery of a "trace" tends to set the witness thinking in terms of a UFO. And, of course, if there is a close encounter at the root of the discovery he will often go to the area where he saw the UFO (either on the ground or passing lof a projectile shot by the Brazilian artillery !) can be taken as a clear example of the many problems being behind these cases.
Often cases relating to the falls of strange objects from the sky (pieces of ice or metal, as well as simple meteorites) have been unduly associated to UFO phenomena and considered as "fragments". Agreeing that there is absolutelty no relationship between such strange falls (collected and studied by Fortean researchers) and UFOs, most ufologists justly avoid to consider those events inside the "physical trace evidence".
ow-down) with a view to finding evidence of the reality of the experience. This is not only to prove what happened to others, but often to prove it to himself. This intense desire to find proof can easily lead to him discovering a myriad of insignificant anomalies (eg a broken branch, an animal mark, the remains of a fire and so on) and relating them to the UFO. This is a typical scenario for a UFO seen in the distance (where often the exact location of the landing or near landing is not know anyhow). Much less common is the deliberate false linking of spurious traces with a genuine UFO (in order to make the sighting more believable). Even so, in our view, this latter scenario is feasible for many rational people who would normally not behave in this fashion.
That possibility must be taken very seriously when investigators don't follow-up the "traces" on site and we merely rely on the word of the witness. When enquirers do visit the site we should expect them to validate or invalidate the traces,but the reality of the matter is often rather different.
Unfortunately, a UFO investigator is usually on the same level as the witness, having the same unconscious need and beliefs, maybe even more enlarged due to his special "work". He is usually unprepared in terms of scientific methodology. He may well strongly desire to present a "classic" case to his colleagues. He may have a belief system which includes the material reality of the UFO phenomenon, thus anticipating trace evidence. All of these things lead him into frequent and serious errors. The investigator is lead desperately in search of traces to support his "ambitions" and "needs". Any sufficiently strange mark at the site (or there abouts) will be seen in terms of alien activity or near. In this way we ened up with a vast range of different traces, almost always truly explicable in conventional terms. But he will quickly dismiss all these possible explanations, for that is not what he seeks.
UNIDENTIFIED TRACES
Obviously that scenario is a general one, there are some truly strange and apparently unidentified traces, but their percentage is quite low (even if it cannot be termed negligible). In any case, a number of doubts must remain. Natural phenomena or human activity under unusual circumstances could precipitate apparently unexplained traces. If this circumstance is rare enough the possibility of identification is, to tell the truth, close to impossible, except in a few lucky cases. These possibilities are too important to overlook. The so much extolled "physical (trace) evidence" is based on a small number of baffling cases and those which are investigated in enough depth form again but a fraction (perhaps 25 %). More "incontestable proof" actually stems from newspaper articles or nothing more substantial than the witness' say-so.
In other words, what we term the "trace phenomenon" is but a small residue of well investigated reports, about 5 % or less of the total volume of records according to analyses processed on different collections of cases. If an examination is carried out on a national sample, with a little more critical approach, such percentage can even become 1% or so. But just that is the field where ufologist try to concentrate their own attention in order to search for the original causes of such puzzling events.
Here one example of a high quality trace cases, where the reported traces haven't been explained satisfactorily:
- Following the observation of a metallic cigar-shaped object taking off from a maze field, an oblong damaged area was found in the field itself. The plants in that zone were folded, without being broken, in such a way that the leaves were also laid flat. The maized cobs appeared dry on the outside, while inside they were still fresh. The "squashed" area covered part of three of the plants rows, two of which were folded towards the east and one towards the west. The measurements of this affected site were 6.5 x 2.9 meters and the 2.4 meters high plants were folded at a level of 1.1 - 1.2 meters from the ground. It seems that in the middle of the area there was a hole which appeared to have been made by a strong stream of air (18).
HOAXED TRACES
We must also not forget the outright hoax - fake traces accompanying UFO sightings. The same pseudo-witness or other people produce some material proofs for creating a story where the fundamental element is the UFO or, even better, what it represents at the emotional stage. There are two great groups of faked traces:
(1) those produced purposely.
(2) those previously being on the site of "discovery" and exploited to improve reliability and exceptionality of the (invented) sighting tale.
Traces of point (1) are the majority: according to the means employed for their production, they appear more or less exceptional. There are quite rough works, involving the use of fire to burn ground and/or vegetation within a limited zone (usually circular in shape, as well as sophisticated ones where hoaxers employ tools to produce holes, furrows and flattened areas or,again, apparently strange substances.
To build a trace isn't a difficult operation and one is able to satisfy one's whims in accordance with his own knowledges of the UFO mythology: this could explain the wide variety of shapes and characteristics of the supposed "proof" well known to ufologists. In a 1970 issue of the English magazine MUFOB - now MAGONIA - (19) was even published an article about how building a mysterious hole in a field, similar to the famous 1963 Charlton one (20) (21).
The quantity of this kind of cases is much more high than usually one thinks, notwithstanding what true believers state. The reason of such an attitude is simple: physical evidence has always been the chief element of an old type of defence against the sceptics' attacks. Hoaxers hide themselves behind the anonymity and only in very rare cases (generally after a long period of time) they confess the joke. Most investigators aren't able to go deep into the enquiry and this makes many cases unresolved. Often one has some doubts about the reliability of a trace case, but it isn't possible to prove them in nearly all the times. This situation allows that faked traces are thought to be only a restricted minority of all available events.